Features in patches are applied to AI when we find some problem and there is a quick solution to it, or when someone offers us a completed work for implementation but we do not invest primarily time into fixing/improving AI. Also this thing was not just to make the Stukas work better - I had that thing fixed before we changed the sandbags etc. to neutral. The fact that you owned the wires/sandbags/roadblocks etc. had several issues. One of them was, for example, that if you built your sandbags somewhere and you retreatet from the position and opponent moved units near the sandbags, the units were under some circumstances visible in FoW. Another thing that I noticed in one test game where the AI was US AB. An AB HQ squad got closer to one of the sandbags I built, they threw flame nade on it, but they were under fire and so they figured out that the best place to take cover would be the sandbags, which provide green cover...and thanks to their flame nade it was also full of flames...so they were standing there, taking cover at sandbags which they themselves set on fire, taking damage from the flames and then they got the best idea ever - throw normal grenade at the sandbags again when the sandbags were literary one step away from them! So they basically wiped themselves out without the opponent (me) doing anything...actually I built the sandbags, so technically I did something to kill them - this stupid AI behavior is something that could happen with AI on any map, while what you describe (blocking bridge so AI is trapped) is something that can only happen on maps that have bridges and people usually fortify those bridges with MGs/AT guns anyway to prevent passage so if you put there some extra roadblocks too, what is the difference really?As I said the situation where AI wipes its own infantry could happen on any map while what you say could happen only on some maps so even in general I would say this change helped AI rather than harm it.

MarKr wrote:so they were standing there, taking cover at sandbags which they themselves set on fire, taking damage from the flames and then they got the best idea ever - throw normal grenade at the sandbags again when the sandbags were literary one step away from them! So they basically wiped themselves out without the opponent (me) doing anything....

You are complaining about a Bk feature. Ai prb in front of flames was a problem know even before coh was released. It is why at vcoh peoples are immune to their own flames. If your soldiers burn themselves, it is because it is a bk modification. It is also lead most time Sherman croco turret mg gunner die about immediately from its own tank flames.

Point be immune to flames is no more stupid or irrealist than run at full speed in your own mine field and be immune to it. It is just a choice.

MarKr wrote:that can only happen on maps that have bridges and people usually fortify those bridges with MGs/AT guns anyway to prevent passage so if you put there some extra roadblocks too, what is the difference really?

Difference is simply mg / at gun can be destroyed like static defence could be before the patch. Making defences neutral, make them like indestructible. Player become master of time and God of the game. But like said, it is paradoxal, but players will love you for that. So in an optic to make Blitzkrieg popular among pve/multicoop players, it is a good thing for you. Dont see any irony, it is just a cold analysis.

I actually already expressed my doubts about this before the patch release, tho i think that got ignored or i probably missed the answer.

Bren and Dingo would now be the only tier 1/1.5 fuel costing vehicles that will be oneshot by tier 1 AT. Isn't that too much?

I mean: other vehicles of the same tier costing fuel i can think of are PE scout cars, which i rarelly/never see getting oneshot by 37mm AT gun, and never by Boys AT squad. Just scout cars are cheaper in MP while infantry of the same tier (talking about brits) is still more expansive.

So, may I ask deeper details on what's the reason for making 37mm AT able to oneshot early brits vehicles?

Toni, i am with you. I dont get the logic either. Not that they cost more, they kill also less fast, are slower and have no rotatable turret like PE cars that can literally dance with enemie AT guns. Something a dingo or bren would never be able to anyway.

Jalis wrote:You are complaining about a Bk feature. Ai prb in front of flames was a problem know even before coh was released. It is why at vcoh peoples are immune to their own flames. If your soldiers burn themselves, it is because it is a bk modification. It is also lead most time Sherman croco turret mg gunner die about immediately from its own tank flames.

Point be immune to flames is no more stupid or irrealist than run at full speed in your own mine field and be immune to it. It is just a choice.

I am not complaining, you just said that we claimed that the change was made because we couldn't find better solution. We could and did, but this solved more problems - AI potentially killing it self by taking cover near sandbags that later tries to "kill"; AI wasting ammo on destroying these things when it is not neccessary to care about them at all; possible FoW hack in PvP.

Jalis wrote:Difference is simply mg / at gun can be destroyed like static defence could be before the patch. Making defences neutral, make them like indestructible. Player become master of time and God of the game. But like said, it is paradoxal, but players will love you for that. So in an optic to make Blitzkrieg popular among pve/multicoop players, it is a good thing for you. Dont see any irony, it is just a cold analysis.

Yeah...on how many occasions can AI cross a bridge which is covered by AT emplacement + MG nest? If you compstomp, you know that is the only point which AI will try to attack (or only point which it can attack) so even if AI uses arty or whatever to decrew the emplacements, players always have soldiers nearby to recrew it again. This way, you fend off wave after wave of enemies untill you pile up enough army to smash AI. This way it is only different in that AI will not target those roadblocks which, you are right, is sort of like "impenetrable" defense but since the AI rarely breaks through the emplacements guarding the bridge, it makes little difference in the end. If it is bugging you so much, don't build tank traps and roadblocks

sgtToni95 wrote:So, may I ask deeper details on what's the reason for making 37mm AT able to oneshot early brits vehicles?

It actually was answered:

MarKr wrote:

sgtToni95 wrote:After this said, would you devs mind answering those few points/questions i brought up in my previous post in this topic (expecially that on 37mm AT gun)?

To your questions:@ 37mm vs Dingo and Bren: For Dingo there is still about 35% chance to get "main gun destroyed" critical instead of being destroyed outright, Brens will die to the shot every time. This change is there to encourage more careful approach with these vehicles and to, at least partially, even out the fact that the BOYS rifle poses bigger threat to early axis vehicles too.

We got that answer, but really? Ok, for the sake of PE vs CW balance it would be understandable. But when US gets "scout cared" early on (esspecially with new AT aim time which i like though) its "OK"? We could also argue the other way arround in the moment when CW meets WH. Maybe be a bit more carefull with Mr. WH player?

Side question to this: Could we increase the crit chance of US 37 mm AT against early light PE vehicles? For the same reason.

1st armed vehicles that can be fielded by PE, WM and US are Schwim/Bike/Jeep - these can be one shotted by early AT (37mm/BOYS), but can also be destroyed by normal bullets. Brens/Dingos are first armed vehicles of CW and appart from MP they also cost fuel, but in turn are also bulletproof. So I would not say that these are on the level of PE scout car, they are somewhere between those unarmored units of other factions and scout cars. The fact that they cost fuel does not mean they need to withstand shots from early AT, the fuel tag is there simply for the bullet resistance.

Well, Boys accuracy is still not the best, and they need 2-3 shots every time to kill scout cars. And honestly i've never seen them used so aggressively, or at least not as aggressively as scout cars, while now trying to rush with those is like choosing to waste your resources, while with scout cars is still a nice chance to cause decent trouble.This because it is fast, it can cap without upgrades ( in that case dingo's price would be much higher for that game phase) and it shoots 360 degrees while dingo always needs to turn all around. Dingo is more vulnerable to rifles and mgs, and it has to face infantry that has molotov and AT nades from the start. And here i say Dingo but the same could be said for Bren.

In case of brits the price for AT squads and early units is still the highest of any faction (with advantages of course) and for US the situation is probably worse than for PE and WH against early fuel-costing brits vehicles.

Dingo is quite fast, and sometimes it can flank paks and be used so aggressively, while bren is always used carefully, and i personally think it's better used defensively after mg upgrade. So maybe, if things have to remain like this, the one with some chance to get destroyed main gun should be Bren in my opinion.

And i honestly didn't see so much complaining about early CW vehicles (maybe i missed those), just on OP early brits AT but i'm not sure this is really a fair way to balance even if not everything is meant to be the same.

I'm not even asking that for 50mm pak, just for 37 mm tier 1 AT.

Edit: are really scout cars more vulnerable to small bullets? Didn't seem so.

And i think if they're meant to be between scout cars and first unarmored vehicles, it would make sense if they were at least cheaper? Fuel is for bullet protection, but in early game is a consistent delay to tiering up, and paying that for a oneshottable unit is, from my point of view, not so fair/worth it.

Generally speaking Scout car, Dingo and Bren all can be penetrated by small ams but it is usually set the way that the weapons have about 1% chance to penetrate it and when they do, they deal lower damage (about -30%) or the weapons have chance to penetra of about 10% but they deal about 95% less damage, all in all they penetrate very rarely and when they do, they deal damage that is usually around "10" and the vehicle have between 200 and 300 HP so killing them with small arms is possible but it takes painfully long time.

sgtToni95 wrote:And i think if they're meant to be between scout cars and first unarmored vehicles, it would make sense if they were at least cheaper? Fuel is for bullet protection, but in early game is a consistent delay to tiering up, and paying that for a oneshottable unit is, from my point of view, not so fair/worth it.

Maybe, but CW in general has things that are expensive and lowering their price is somewhat against this. If you consider that not that long ago nobody really used Dingo because it had weaker weapon than Bren and relatively no advantage (binoculars but without camo it was hard to use it), and even Brens were not used that often because the weapons were crappy as hell. Then we added passive camo and capture upgrades for Dingo and suddenly Dingo was always used over Bren, because Dingo provides the recon that CW is otherwise missing and Bren kept its crappy loadout. Later Vickers upgrade for Bren was improved to actually work as mobile Vickers (better suppression, more accuracy and damage) + also the Bren gun was moved back to the pintle again (after the patch where we returned the old model to make loaded infantry visible) so the firepower went up again and now it is an early vehicle with considerable firepower. Both vehicles were improved either in utility or firepower and now they should become cheaper? Yes, it is bigger risk to use them with this change but that was the point in the first place.

Well, i said that thing about the price because of considerations, tho i'm not suggesting to change that.Just 37 mm oneshot chance.

I can tell that if you consider in-game situations, and since the problem seem to bee "too aggressive use" dingo/bren are used aggressively 1/10 or even less than scout cars, and i've never seen games ending because of those, while i've seen them ending because of scout cars and people asking for rematch.

I've never seen anyone complaining about those rushing, while i've seen many people complaining about double scout car rush.

So i can't really understand why you changed that.Too aggressive approach is seriously something i almost never saw in game.

And i honestly think that fuel cost is there to make them buildable not from the start, when enemy will almost surely have a reliable AT preventing you from rushing.

Bren and dingo have upgrades and other uses, but scout car has as well upgrade that allows it to lock down sectors, upgrade resources and when settled down they pin and lock down enemy infantry pretty much instantly.

I'm sorry if i'm being too stubborn on this, but where did you see people complaining about rushing brens or dingos?

This "cautious approach" motivation must be something coming from gameplay experience, so i guess from players complaints/suggestions, tho i didn't really see theese in the forum like happened for BOYS being used too effectively for pretty much every use.

Heads up. Very large edit incoming:I think I know why and I'm starting to agree with Toni for different reasons.The cw build order is so rigid in the meta that deviation from it is adding variance instead of decision making.Quick summary of what I mean by this is that bk is a game of rng, so by nature no player will win every game. The best players understand this concept at least subconsciously and so what they put into their "playstyle" and strategy is hedging. The method of winning is making decisions at points where the opponent has made a mistake, capitalizing and increasing their chance to victory every time until their chances are near 100. Imo, that is the philosophical best way to win at bk. Even though chess has no rng, at top levels they play at the same way. This is why metas in bk develop, the best hedged move at the top becomes the only good move for not as good players who see how better players win more doing that particular thing. It is also why some good players can do many different openings but newer players stick with formulas and ping/bitch like annoying monsters when others don't play the formula.

Anyways back to the dingo/bren. I think Toni's logic is that the tier of unit the dingo/bren is not of the jeep/bike tier but the sct car tier so should be treated similarly. There is some truth to that in that the cw build relies on sooo much hedging to carry it through the later stages of the game. The fact that it only gets one production building at the start means that while other factions can quickly build multiple kinds of starting units and push to mid game, cw only can get maybe 2/3 variety before it needs to start rushing mid game so it doesn't get stomped. This puts a LOT of pressure on unit preservation for cw, which cw has been reliably durable and accomplishable up until this more recent change. This change means more for a CW player because it directly nerfs a trait that CW players are highly dependent on. Anything fragile in CW is almost always underused. Other example: stuart light tanks. By the time it is available as a unit the axis already have units that one shot it.

No matter if the dingo/Bren changes or not we will adapt. But I definitely see Toni's point.

I think toni made it clear and kwok also. Nothing much to add. It one of those "logic" i dont get. We said CW costs more (but for reasons). In this case it costs more (for absolutely no reason). They cost more, production prevents CW to produce other stuff (like PE can build still inf at the same time), are slower and have several disadvantages compared to PE scout car as toni made clear here (like no cap at default, slower in case of bren, less firepower unless its upgraded, die faster). Its easy to say "it cost more bc the faction is designed to cost more". But from my understanding of "more expensive" is that you also get something good or better. (Well, lets not consider US at this time).

On top of all that, as mentioned, there has never been a dingo car double rush "abuse" or anything. The US had and has to live with the fact to get scout car rushed in the first minutes. We didnt add better cirt hit chances or one shot chances. Now there was a slight reason WH would get rushed by dingo abuses: That issue gets addressed right before it ever happened. Funny understanding of balance.On top of that, if PE would "play save" they could just as well go only for Grens/Scout car and 37 mm for defense or, in case dingo abuse is expected, go instantly for grens, 37 mm AT and 28 mm AT scout car to catch all the little dingos that want to create chaos.

The Bren shouldnt die by so easy by a single hit of 37 mm. Its slow, costly, usually needs MG upgrade and has no abilties so far. Also the flamethrower version could somehow make a difference as well in early game. As for the dingo, it should have a good chance to get away with low HP and a crit. Not dying instant but taking it out of action for a while without being a total write off.

And dont say now "that its suddenly a matter". We are thankfull for making both of them usefull (reward changes and weapon boosts and dingo upgrades), however i told you right away to lower the cost for dingo by a bit bc it has further upgrades to purchase to become really usefull like a scout car.

I mean, I could also play Devils advocate and take on the change as the best "logical" thing as well.

The reason why the dingo and Bren carrier is kept expensive but fragile is purely because cw is over-durable and has slowly become extremely self-dependent, making them extreme solo power houses like terror doc that allied players hate so much. Giving them additional capability and flexibility when realistically a 37mm at round would probably make the cars go pop is illogical. CW needs the variety of units. Take all the openings that CW can do right now:Rifles - powerful and durableSappers - utility and durableAt boys - corner case powerful and durableVickers - powerful and utilityBren carrier - mobile and powerful AND durable?Dingo - mobile and utility AND durable?

Even though players don't do it (it takes time for metas to build) on principle the cars are extremely good units and have a high potential of dominating and moving the game away from teamwork. personally, I started using the Bren carrier more and it really helps me. The mobile mg is trading mid game power for early game momentum, delays the Axis uber vetted inf and establishes a LOT of map control which only recently has CW been able to do with the move of at boys before LT. so what if the 37mm can one shot it... the Bren has wheels and can reposition and harass faster than the 37mm can reposition. If you played on bigger maps then this is really really easy to do. Sure it's not the same kind of harass as jeeps and bikes, those are hit and run special units. Bren carriers are zone control, play them like they are an MG that locks areas, not a zippy pest.

May i ask you if you changed anything in the effectiveness of AT squads and AT gun crews anti infantry capabilities with last patch?

I saw 17pdr crews killing infantry "quite reliably", 75mm pak killing piat squads before it got even at short/mid range, shreck squads killing basic infantry with their two riflemen more than once (noticed this on playbetter's game against lehr on bizory, but happened me too in other 2-3 games).

I can tell they're all explainable by some weird RNG rolls, just i saw them a lot more often after the latest patch release and just wanted to be sure.

I think generally AT guns in particular are currently doing MUCH better vs inf than against tanks.. specifically after adding this ridiculous 4 seconds aim time for AT guns... Which aren't actually 4s but somehow even more, and I already said before that this aim time really need to be lowered by 2 seconds for ALL AT guns. Also, thanks to HE rounds; some AT guns are not AT anymore, but rather called "anti-infantry" guns!

Not sure if this added aiming time is that of a problem. I've played like 10+ games under new patch and didnt have much of a trouble from that. Yes, it takes a bit more "prediction" and luck to make a proper trap for a vehicle, but No, it only benefits from those factors, unless its not those abusive "manyscoutcars" strats (which also debatable from map u'r playing on).Regardless ATsquadrifles, dunno, guess nothing new. They can crit preety well, especially from ambush, and maybe that what causes this confustion.

sgtToni95 wrote:May i ask you if you changed anything in the effectiveness of AT squads and AT gun crews anti infantry capabilities with last patch?

I saw 17pdr crews killing infantry "quite reliably", 75mm pak killing piat squads before it got even at short/mid range, shreck squads killing basic infantry with their two riflemen more than once (noticed this on playbetter's game against lehr on bizory, but happened me too in other 2-3 games).

I can tell they're all explainable by some weird RNG rolls, just i saw them a lot more often after the latest patch release and just wanted to be sure.

Nothing changed there. The crews still have same weapons and those weapons were not touched. So probably just RNG going lucky for you...or unlucky, depending which side you were on

MarKr wrote:- Significantly increased damage output dealt by Axis 28mm, 37mm and 50mm AT guns vs CW HQ trucks in mobile mode (when the truck is "deployed" the damage remains the same as it was before; change made to prevent crush abuse from CW players in early game)

Was playing PE and noticed that nade bundle on mobile CW truck almost oneshot it (it had like 85% health and it died).

Is it meant to be? I think that's quite a lot of damage to take for such a basic unit in one shot, even when deployed.